Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Seattle University School of Law (216)
- University of Michigan Law School (42)
- UIC School of Law (25)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (9)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (9)
-
- Brooklyn Law School (6)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (6)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (6)
- Pepperdine University (5)
- University of Colorado Law School (5)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (4)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (4)
- St. John's University School of Law (4)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (4)
- Brigham Young University Law School (3)
- Notre Dame Law School (3)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (3)
- University of Central Florida (3)
- Barry University School of Law (2)
- Claremont Colleges (2)
- Fordham Law School (2)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (2)
- St. Mary's University (2)
- University of Baltimore Law (2)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (2)
- University of Georgia School of Law (2)
- City University of New York (CUNY) (1)
- Columbia Law School (1)
- Florida International University College of Law (1)
- Georgetown University Law Center (1)
- Keyword
-
- Congress (23)
- Equal protection (19)
- Fourteenth Amendment (19)
- Discrimination (16)
- Due process (15)
-
- Law (15)
- United States Supreme Court (15)
- Constitution (14)
- Equal Protection Clause (14)
- Affirmative action (12)
- Supreme Court (11)
- Civil Rights Act (10)
- Race and law (10)
- Federalism (9)
- Constitutional law (8)
- Education (7)
- First Amendment (7)
- Legislation (7)
- SFFA (7)
- Affirmative Action (6)
- City of Boerne v. Flores (6)
- Diversity (6)
- Due Process (6)
- ESG (6)
- Fifth Amendment (6)
- Fourteenth amendment (6)
- Judicial review (6)
- Michigan (6)
- State action (6)
- 14th Amendment (5)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (190)
- Seattle Journal for Social Justice (26)
- Michigan Law Review (25)
- UIC Law Review (24)
- Articles (8)
-
- Touro Law Review (8)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (6)
- Michigan Law Review First Impressions (5)
- Pepperdine Law Review (5)
- Publications (5)
- Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice (4)
- Faculty Scholarship (4)
- Journal of Law and Policy (4)
- The Catholic Lawyer (4)
- Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - ) (4)
- BYU Law Review (3)
- Buffalo Law Review (3)
- Cardozo Law Review (3)
- Honors Undergraduate Theses (3)
- Journal of Legislation (3)
- Michigan Journal of Race and Law (3)
- Washington and Lee Law Review Online (3)
- All Faculty Scholarship (2)
- CMC Senior Theses (2)
- Indiana Law Journal (2)
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (2)
- Michigan Journal of Gender & Law (2)
- Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy (2)
- Northwestern University Law Review (2)
- Scholarly Articles (2)
- Publication Type
Articles 331 - 360 of 394
Full-Text Articles in Fourteenth Amendment
Freedom Of Discrimination?:The Conflict Between Public Accommodations' Freedom Association And State Anti-Discrimination Laws, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 125 (2003), Gregory J. Wartman
Freedom Of Discrimination?:The Conflict Between Public Accommodations' Freedom Association And State Anti-Discrimination Laws, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 125 (2003), Gregory J. Wartman
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Righting The Canoe: Title Ix And The Decline Of Men's Intercollegiate Athletics, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 257 (2003), Andrew J. Boyd
Righting The Canoe: Title Ix And The Decline Of Men's Intercollegiate Athletics, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 257 (2003), Andrew J. Boyd
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Reinforcing Representation: Enforcing The Fourteenth And Fifteenth Amendments In The Rehnquist And Waite Courts, Ellen D. Katz
Reinforcing Representation: Enforcing The Fourteenth And Fifteenth Amendments In The Rehnquist And Waite Courts, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
A large body of academic scholarship accuses the Rehnquist Court of "undoing the Second Reconstruction," just as the Waite Court has long been blamed for facilitating the end of the First. This critique captures much of what is meant by those generally charging the Rehnquist Court with "conservative judicial activism." It posits that the present Court wants to dismantle decades' worth of federal antidiscrimination measures that are aimed at the "reconstruction" of public and private relationships at the local level. It sees the Waite Court as having similarly nullified the civil-rights initiatives enacted by Congress following the Civil War to …
Equal Protection And Disparate Impact: Round Three, Richard A. Primus
Equal Protection And Disparate Impact: Round Three, Richard A. Primus
Articles
Prior inquiries into the relationship between equal protection and disparate impact have focused on whether equal protection entails a disparate impact standard and whether laws prohibiting disparate impacts can qualify as legislation enforcing equal rotection. In this Article, Professor Primus focuses on a third question: whether equal protection affirmatively forbids the use of statutory disparate impact standards. Like affirmative action, a statute restricting racially disparate impacts is a race-conscious mechanism designed to reallocate opportunities from some racial groups to others. Accordingly, the same individualist view of equal protection that has constrained the operation of affirmative action might also raise questions …
Dissing Congress, Ruth Colker, James J. Brudney
Dissing Congress, Ruth Colker, James J. Brudney
Michigan Law Review
The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist's recent leadership has invalidated numerous federal laws, arguably departing from settled precedent to do so. The Rehnquist Court has held that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in five instances during the 2000-01 Term, on four occasions during the 1999-2000 Term and in a total of twenty-nine cases since the 1994-95 Term. Commentators typically explain these decisions in federalism terms, focusing on the Court's use of its power to protect the States from an overreaching Congress. That explanation is incomplete and, in important respects, unpersuasive. The Rehnquist Court has not been as solicitous of …
Balancing States' Rights With Individual Rights: Tipping The Scales Against The Rights Of Non-Suspect Classes, Linda Carter Batiste
Balancing States' Rights With Individual Rights: Tipping The Scales Against The Rights Of Non-Suspect Classes, Linda Carter Batiste
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Second Amendment: Structure, History, And Constitutional Change, David Yassky
The Second Amendment: Structure, History, And Constitutional Change, David Yassky
Michigan Law Review
A fierce debate about the Second Amendment has been percolating in academia for two decades, and has now bubbled through to the courts. The question at the heart of this debate is whether the Amendment restricts the government's ability to regulate the private possession of firearms. Since at least 1939 - when the Supreme Court decided United States v. Miller, its only decision squarely addressing the scope of the right to "keep and bear Arms" - the answer to that question has been an unqualified "no." Courts have brushed aside Second Amendment challenges to gun control legislation, reading the Amendment …
Private Remedies For Public Wrongs Under Section 5 (Symposium: New Directions In Federalism), Evan H. Caminker
Private Remedies For Public Wrongs Under Section 5 (Symposium: New Directions In Federalism), Evan H. Caminker
Articles
The Supreme Court has ushered in the new millennium with a renewed emphasis on federalism-based limits to Congress's regulatory authority in general, and Congress's Section 5 power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment in particular. In a recent string of cases, the Court has refined and narrowed Section 5's enforcement power in two significant ways.1 First, the Court made clear that Congress lacks the authority to interpret the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive provisions themselves, and may only "enforce" the judiciary's definition of Fourteenth Amendment violations. 2 Second, the Court embraced a relatively stringent requirement concerning the relationship between means …
Practicing Medicine Without A License: Legislative Attempts To Mandate Chemical Castration For Repeat Sex Offenders, 32 J. Marshall L. Rev. 381 (1999), Lisa Keesling
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
What Spending Clause? - (Or The President's Paramour): An Examination Of The Views Of Hamilton, Madison, And Story On Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 Of The United States Constitution, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 81 (1999), Jeffrey T. Renz
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Federal Bribery Statute And The Ethics Of Purchasing Testimony, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 209 (1999), Camille Knight
Federal Bribery Statute And The Ethics Of Purchasing Testimony, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 209 (1999), Camille Knight
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
State Laws Criminalizing Female Circumcision: A Violation Of The Equal Protection Clause Of The Fourteenth Amendment, 32 J. Marshall L. Rev. 353 (1999), Shea Lita Bond
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Reply: Did The Fourteenth Amendment Repeal The First?, Jed Rubenfeld
Reply: Did The Fourteenth Amendment Repeal The First?, Jed Rubenfeld
Michigan Law Review
To get right to the point: Mr. Hacker does not disagree that the Establishment Clause would, in the absence of the Fourteenth Amendment, have prohibited Congress from passing a nationwide religion law like RFRA. He believes, however, that the Fourteenth Amendment has in part repealed the First. Of course, he doesn't want to say repealed. The language of repeal is not pleasant to the ears of those who would like to forget about First Amendment antidisestablishmentarianism. The Fourteenth Amendment did not "repeal any aspect of the text of the [Establishment] Clause," Hacker says, but only "change[d] profoundly the meaning of …
A Response To Professor Rubenfeld, Jonathan D. Hacker
A Response To Professor Rubenfeld, Jonathan D. Hacker
Michigan Law Review
Professor Jed Rubenfeld has offered in these pages an ingenious explanation for why the Supreme Court was right to strike down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in City of Boerne v. Flores. Rubenfeld finds in the First Amendment's Establishment Clause a historical and inherent principle he calls "antidisestablishmentarianism": a prohibition on acts of Congress that "disestablish" religion in the several states. Rubenfeld reads the Establishment Clause as proscribing not only congressional acts that "establish" religion but also all congressional acts that "dictate a position on religion for states," including laws designed to ensure that states abide by the requirements …
Hopwood, Equal Protection, And Affirmative Action: Can Anyone's Ox Be Gored?, David J. Jannuzzi
Hopwood, Equal Protection, And Affirmative Action: Can Anyone's Ox Be Gored?, David J. Jannuzzi
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Equal Protection, Court Of Appeals: Trustees Of Union College V. Schenectady City Council
Equal Protection, Court Of Appeals: Trustees Of Union College V. Schenectady City Council
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Due Process, Supreme Court New York County: Ramanadhan V. Wing
Due Process, Supreme Court New York County: Ramanadhan V. Wing
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Equal Protection, Supreme Court, New York County: Walter V. City Of New York Police Department
Equal Protection, Supreme Court, New York County: Walter V. City Of New York Police Department
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Judicial Supremacy And The Settlement Function, Robert F. Nagel
Judicial Supremacy And The Settlement Function, Robert F. Nagel
Publications
No abstract provided.
Equal Protection, Class Legislation, And Colorblindness, Melissa L. Saunders
Equal Protection, Class Legislation, And Colorblindness, Melissa L. Saunders
Michigan Law Review
Scholars and judges have long assumed that the Equal Protection Clause is concerned only with state action that has the effect of singling out certain persons or groups of persons for special benefits or burdens. Under the traditional doctrinal framework, state action that has this purpose and effect bears a certain burden of justification under the clause, a burden whose stringency varies, depending on the criteria used to define the class being singled out for special treatment and the importance of the interest affected. But state action that lacks such a "discriminatory effect" is not, on the traditional understanding, subject …
No More Excuses: Closing The Door On The Voluntary Intoxication Defense, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 535 (1997), Chad J. Layton
No More Excuses: Closing The Door On The Voluntary Intoxication Defense, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 535 (1997), Chad J. Layton
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Women's Powerless Tool: How Congress Overreached The Constitution With The Civil Rights Remedy Of The Violence Against Women Act, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 803 (1997), Lisa A. Carroll
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Right To Appointed Counsel In Termination Of Parental Rights Proceedings: The State's Response To Lassiter, Rosalie R. Young
The Right To Appointed Counsel In Termination Of Parental Rights Proceedings: The State's Response To Lassiter, Rosalie R. Young
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Polygamy And Same-Sex Marriage, David L. Chambers
Polygamy And Same-Sex Marriage, David L. Chambers
Articles
In the American federal system, state governments bear the responsibility for enacting the laws that define the persons who are permitted to marry. The federal government, throughout our history, has accepted these definitions and built upon them, fixing legal consequences for those who validly marry under state law. Only twice in American history has Congress intervened to reject the determinations that states might make about who can marry. The first occasion was in the late nineteenth century when Congress enacted a series of statutes aimed at the Mormon Church, prohibiting polygamy in the Western territories and punishing the Church and …
Adarand Constructors V. Pena: Madisonian Theory As A Justification For Lesser Constitutional Scrutiny Of Federal Race-Conscious Legislation, Russell N. Watterson Jr.
Adarand Constructors V. Pena: Madisonian Theory As A Justification For Lesser Constitutional Scrutiny Of Federal Race-Conscious Legislation, Russell N. Watterson Jr.
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
To Accomplish Fairness And Justice: Substantive Due Process, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 95 (1996), James W. Hilliard
To Accomplish Fairness And Justice: Substantive Due Process, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 95 (1996), James W. Hilliard
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
An Argument For Universal Pediatric Hiv Testing, Counseling And Treatment, Colin Crawford
An Argument For Universal Pediatric Hiv Testing, Counseling And Treatment, Colin Crawford
Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice
The article argues that mandatory pediatric HIV testing, counseling, and treatment are essential to address a public health emergency, overriding constitutional concerns. The author, Colin Crawford, asserts that early detection and treatment significantly improve the lives of HIV-positive children, making it a compelling state interest that should take precedence over privacy and autonomy concerns.
Bi-Partisan Voting: In Re Matthews
New York's Educational Finance Scheme: Should It Be Declared Unconstitutional?, Janine M. Sarbak
New York's Educational Finance Scheme: Should It Be Declared Unconstitutional?, Janine M. Sarbak
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Voting Rights Debate, Charles Stephen Ralston, Michael A. Carvin
Voting Rights Debate, Charles Stephen Ralston, Michael A. Carvin
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.